country, that immigrants are part and parcel of the heart of this country. thank you. host: this comes from crag, on facebook. host: two of our followers like that. you could join the conversation on c-span -- on facebook, look for c-span. warren, good morning. caller: the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., january 29, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable fred upton to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives.

the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we thank you once again that we, your creatures, can come before you and ask guidance for the men and women of this assembly. send your spirit of peace as they visit their families and constituencies back home. may their hears and hearts be -- ears and hearts be open to listen to those whom they represent. bless the people of this great nation with wisdom, knowledge and understanding that they might be responsibly participate in our american democracy by making their interests known to their representatives. please keep all who work for the people's house in good health that they might faithfully fulfill the great responsibility given them and their service to the work of

the capital. bless us this day and every day and may that is done here be done for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. without objection, when the house adjourns today it will adjourn to meet at 11:00 a.m. on friday, february 1, 2013, and further when the house adjourns on that day it shall adjourn to meet at 2:00 p.m. on monday, february 4, 2013.

the chair now lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on january 28, 2013, at 5:05 p.m., appointments, social security advisory board, congressional award board, commission on security and cooperation in europe. with best wishes i am signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house another communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on january 29, 2013, at 9:12 a.m., that the senate passed without amendment h.r.

152. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the house stands adjourned until >> the house will be back next week for legislative work and two freshmen representatives -- the house will be back next week for legislative work. coming up and about one hour, 50 minutes, we'll take you live to las vegas for president obama will talk about immigration reform policy. we will have his, as live for you here on c-span. wednesday on c-span, a senate

judiciary committee meeting on gun violence and mark kelly, the husband of deborah different -- gabrielle gifford will be there. also the national rifle association ceo will be there, live tomorrow morning at 10:00 on c-span. >> all of us worked hard for our cause is way before we got to the white house. the white house just was an enormous push up. i think the ladies would agree that the day before you are married to the president-elect, nobody gives a darn what you say. the day after he is the president-elect, people think you are brilliant and your cause is very good. [laughter] that helps. [applause] >> the new original series," it is produced

with the white house historical association, season one begins president's day, february 18, at 9:00 p.m. eastern. >> 3 of the moderators of the 2012 presidential and vice- presidential debate spoke last night in washington. they talked about how they prepared and how twitter and social media influence to the debate and how they thought the candidates performed, from the national press club, this is one hour, 20 minutes. [applause] national press corps and the kalb report. most would agree for the 2012 loud, and too noisy. except for the last month, with three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate. 70 million watched the first

and 60 million watched each of the other three. only the super bowl did better than that. let's remember,in 11 of the last 14 debates, there have been these debates and they are a fixed feature of the political landscape. we have a wonderful opportunity to talk to three moderatores of the 2012 debate. to my right is jim lehrer, who has done 12 debates. nobody will catch up to that.

jim is and prolific author and winner of every prize in journalism. to my left, bob schieffer, anchor of "face the nation" and an author and winner of many journalism awards, and martha raddatz, the chief global affairs correspondent. she spent a lot of time in iraq and afghanistan and winner of many prizes for her reporting. candy crowley cannot be with us because of a family emergency. we send our best to her. jim and bob have done this debate stuff before. for martha, it was a first appearance. you have done so many interviews in your career.

was this any different? >> not at all. [applause] [laughter] >> janet brown called me. i said, i'll take a vacation and go do the debates. it was so different. i was not covering the campaign. i was running around the world. i basically crammed into nothing but study -- and did nothing but study, like studying for the sats, and then taking them in front of millions of people. [laughter] when i first got the call, i was so out of the loop, with how they do it that i remember janet saying to me, so how many are there? we would like for you to do the

rest of the debate. the fourth vice presidential debate. that is how much that i knew and i told my family, when she called it, it was right after, you have either won the lottery or you have been told you have a terminal illness. because you don't hear anything after she says, "we would like you to moderate this debate." >> you did the one vice presidential debate? >> there was only one. it turned out>> the gop as you to refer to -- asked you to refer to congressman paul riot as mr. ryan, but you did not. you called him congressman ryan. what was that about? >> the day before, one of the people at abc got a phone call, from one of his people and said it -- there is disagreement with the commission and we get to be called whatever we want to be called.

i am not paying any attention to that. i am driving handcuff i am in -- i am driving in this is ed gillespie. he says, we have work this out and you will call him mr. ryan. and i said, what about the commission? he said, this is fine with the commission. so you think at the beginning i will say, vice president joe biden, and paul ryan? there was no real agreement. >> have either of these political parties ask you to do something other than that. >> that was the only contact i had with anybody and frankly i just put it out of my head.

it wasn't i fought -- they ask me to do this. >> it did anyone attempt to influence you? >> and there was no influence -- i never had contact with the campaign and you had the hardest in that you were covering this. i was off in the corner. >> this was not a new experience for you. it was the third time. this time you ask for cbs not to have you report on the other debates because you wanted to avoid even an appearance. of bias. so why that attitude of the first time and not the first to? >> what is different is the scrutiny was so intense. there used to be about -- 10 people that wrote about these things.

another are 700, -- -- now there is 700 that read about it. > we will get to that. >> just to give you the example. nobody holds back anything anymore. i can remember when people would write letters to the editor, and they would get it out of their system. now they just pressed -- pressed the send button. someone showed me the messages that people were tweaking, if -- that people were treating that is what you call it, on the night of the debate. one of them said, who is that old guy? is that one of those old guys on the muppets? [laughter] and it was sort of like that. but i kind of understood that in the beginning and i thought it would be a good idea if i stayed under the radar, and waited till my debate came along

and to cbs at the beginning, they do pay my salary and they expect some work for that. then they decided maybe this was a good idea. i am really glad. >> was there anything special about this debate? and you were the last one? election. someone asked me if i was surprised about the outcome, and i was not but this was so close and the blue states were so blue and so red, i would not be surprised if it went the other way. all i knew is that this would be very close election. >> jim, you have done 12 of these, i assume that each time you prepared in a similar way,

with a very intense preparation. what have you learned, about candidates for the process of presidential debates? what have you picked up? >> there are several things. number one is this is not about the questions, this is about preparation so you can listen, intelligently and make some quick decisions in the new format where you have to react and all of that sort of stuff. it is about spending hours and hours trying to get enough in your head so that can -- if candidate a says something, you know if this is something important to say or something whatever. and you bring the context with you, and that is the number-one thing.

and the other thing is it is never about me. it is never about the moderator. these debates are designed -- i know some moderating in a debate as practiced journalism. the debate is among the candidates and for the candidates and for the public and has nothing to do with the people who are asking the questions and doing the time and all of that. it is a function of the democratic process, that is called the debate. and those are the things that come out of it. >> it is obvious that in 2012, we were at new heights of political polarization in the country itself and i wonder, why do you think, and i will turn to you first, why was the so much criticism of the

moderator's this time, which had not been the case in earlier debates? you came in for a good bit of it. >> i did. most of this dissipated over time because the initial criticism was that it came from partisans who thought that barack obama did a very poor job and those people could not criticize obama so they had to criticize somebody and had to criticize me or the process but once they realized it did not have that much to do with whether obama did well or mitt romney did well and had more to do with the two of them, that intensity of it was because there was this dramatic difference, with what happened? the moderator did not do this

-- i now like to be criticized, -- i don't like to be criticized. it's not one of my favorite things to be but -- as i said, it dissipated and is gone, and most of the people who did the criticizing, many of them have come to me afterward and said, i am sorry. >> to apologize. in an interview you said>> he said of the moderator should be seen little and heard even less, and in use of the moderator should stay out of the way of the flow. that being a very valid point of view, why not challenge a candidate who, you are listening to someone hide something beyond reality or live or simply mislead the public? yourself? -- take upon yourself? >> i would if those were the

only events in the course of a presidential election. by the time you get to october, we got to october 2012, the campaign had been going on two years. and this is a lot of the process but this is not all of the process. if the candidate who says something and it is the responsibility of the first candidate to challenge -- these events are designed to show what the candidate can do. it is the other candidate's responsibility to challenge unless it is a huge thing.

>> you do not feel that it is your job as a moderator to be part of this. >> i would if i was practicing as a journalist. >> for me to facilitate, to do something about it, yes. >> when you were doing your debate, the vice presidential debate, you appear to have a different point of view because i remind you, your first question about libya was rather sharp, this was a pointed question. and you were clearly not just setting this up, and a sitting back, you were part of this. i am trying to understand if we are witnessing two philosophies in journalism at work. i have a feeling bob may agree with jim on this -- but i have this impression from you,

anyway, that you had a somewhat different approach. >> i worship these guys and they are fantastic. i read that jim's book and -- that was part of my homework. but we all bring a different style and to me, i was chosen because i was a journalist. i did not believe i could lead to someone's defense and lead to the others defense but if i ask a question i want an answer. this is my style. i went through this thing when i was first chosen, thinking, i am not george stephanopoulos, but i was chosen for who i am and i was chosen for whatever body of work and have that i am proud of and i felt that -- the

only thing i would say is different, i spent a lot of time on the questions. i crammed my head as much as i could and remembered things, but to me, i did what pointed questions and i wanted answers. we all have interviewed public figures and usually get 20 minutes and 18 minutes and you don't want to hound them over one topical item -- you cannot help but be part of this. you are looked at because of the questions you ask and what you contribute in the wake of that debate. >> there is another question having to do with the moderator's, and that was this business of, the political party is getting an answer to the question, what is the

sistine mets going to be devoted to? but -- what is this 15 minutes going to be devoted to? devoted to economics or foreign policy, iraq and iran, what ever it should be. at cbs we made a deal about never giving you the questions or categories, because you are supposed to keep that distance. >> do you feel any sense of discomfort at having to participate in what you did this time. >> this is the first time i have that this way and this was new, and basically -- janet called me and said, this time we want to divide this up into six categories, and i said, fine. you did not have to say in what order were anything but i think -- you really don't need to in

today's sophisticated world. >> but you did. and this hadn't happened before so why was the change. >> with the commission said to me was that they were keen on two things. and the commission is running this. the three of us and candy are not rolling this. >> by your jim lehrer. >> -- you are jim lehrer. >> this is how they ask and here is how the imitation goes to the debate. and if under these rules, would you do this certain fang -- i found out what they propose and made the decision, i would do that and here is what they said. because i was like that as well.

the feeling was that the commission wanted to make sure that in the mind of the public this was a debate between the candidates, that this was not a gotcha game. this is not about reporters trying to embarrass people asked him who the prime minister of whenever this. let's open this thing up in the new 24-7 world, let's make these debates different from everything else. >> and this is to inform, in the hand, and you want the american public to know who these people are and i actually think -- let's face it, there are not that many surprise categories. >> if they have said, we have to see the list of categories and we will decide which ones that you can use and you can't, that would be a different story.

>> i would remind you that three of mind -- six of mine, three of them were the economy. and that really stunned everybody. >> and even getting into this, this is the experience of the league of women voters, they sponsored the debate in 1976 and 1984 and for the sake of transparency i was one of the reporters that ask questions in 1984. when we finished with that, they pulled out of the sponsorship and argued at the time that there was too much party interference and they said that they had no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the american public. i think that this is terribly tough language, but my question

-- this is overstated. >> but my question to you is not as moderators but as reporters. is this something where there may be the beginning of too cozy a relationship between the parties, and the public? >> i really don't -- i did a foreign policy debate and two of my sections were the middle east. are you going to talk about foreign policy without talking about the middle east? this? >> if they don't want to do this, this is fine with me. >> one thing you want to remember is these debates are about substance, and they are about the middle east and the economy, but what they are really about are the candidates, and who these two

people are. do you like them, do you have a feeling of trust? you take the measure of these individuals, and you ask them would still have a value. at that stage of the game in october, most of the people who are interested have already been falling the campaign and know the differences about issues. >> and we could have asked about anything, even as an economic question and get anything that you want. >> we spend a lot of time

talking about education in the foreign policy debate. >> when you were there in the middle of the first debate, the one that the president was said to have them poor, as this was happening, was that your impression? >> no. >> what was your impression? >> the impressions that are going on, i considered more than one thing at a time, and i believed that romney was doing better and i thought that he was doing well. my own rule is that mitt romney is talking, and obama is standing here, i only look at mitt romney and i never look at the other candidate. i don't want to be a party to his reaction. the consequence is that when mitt romney was talking i did not know, even though i was closer to him than anybody, i was not watching the reactions of barack obama. the only time i looked at him as when he was talking. i cannot help but notice a couple of times he did not look at me, i did not have the impression.

>> in the vice-presidential debate, did you see or hear anything that we, as television viewers of the debate may have missed? >> it is one thing from jim's book, you may miss the moment, on television. i don't think -- i think the one impression, for the same reason, i had no idea that all ryan was 753 glasses of water. -- was apparently having 53 glasses of water. this was like a saturday night live skit. i thought, i am so thirsty.

these guys are talking and they have had no water. i do not think that i missed this. one thing that happens in the debates is the candidates come in, and they are ready for what ever debate that they are ready for. i think that joe biden thought that this would be a little bit more contentious. it took him awhile to get adjusted to that. i thought that this was a very interesting thing, to realize that. that this was happening with the candidates. what would you get to see those rehearsals? >> now that i have thought about this at this very moment, i don't think obama was prepared for what romney was doing.

i was not -- >> having done this three times, you cover all the people that you interview in these presidential debates, what do you pick up, and what are the ingredients of political success? your interviews with people who have risen to the very top, what is it about them? >> every debate is different. you talk about the things that were missed in the 2008 debate, which i moderated between president obama and john mccain, these are two very different people and personalities and when obama would speak, john mccain would furiously taking notes. he is always over calf and it anyway.

-- he is always over-calf and made it anyway. --caffeinated anyway. i love the guy and i like him, but he would take all of these notes and when you look over at obama, when mccain was speaking, obama never took a note. he tried to maintain absolute, direct eye contact, with john mccain almost as if, you will not rattle my chain. hookerand he just keep looking at him and the only time -- during the debate, i still, do not know why he did this, he picked up his pen and he would draw a straight line across the notebook. if this was some sort of as an exercise or maybe he was putting 400 pounds of weight on this or whenever he was doing -- he always did that and i've never had the opportunity to ask why he did that.

during the primary debates with romney, and i talk to him about this, he always wrote something down at the top of this note but and i asked him, what do you write down there? he said, i write down, dad, and it reminds me of my father, and he is my hero. he says i just think of him and this helps me. i have. myth that during this presidential debates i looked down, he wrote something down but i was never able to look over far enough to see if he was writing down his dad's name. >> i want to remind our audience, that this is "the kalb report" and my guests are jim leher, martha raddatz and bob schiefer.

a question, you believe that these debates make our democracy better. do these debates -- make our democracy, as we would like to think of it, does it make it better? >> 100 percent, yes, without reservation. because they are the only times in the course of a presidential campaign when the candidates on the same stage at the same time talking about the same things in a comparative way for everyone who will vote in that election, can see them in action and whenever they are doing, what ever they are talking about, that is the only time they can do that and anytime

that you can do that is a good step in the democratic process. >> you will not agree with that? >> i think it is better for democracy and a terrific public. and it is kind of a coming together. i now believe in the guy you, either. i would never come in there with a gotcha question. you have this sense that you are doing something very important. like you've never done before, that this matters and you are a voice in helping the public understand, that your help in the democratic process, those debates help the democratic process. it is an enormous responsibility.

>> what is your proof? i will ask you got to question. >> 65 million americans watched, and 65 million americans learn something and they are debating the debates the next day. they are not tune in to reporters to hear, they're not listening to what they want to hear, they're not hearing people wanting to get on the news that night, and people asking these questions. >> let me give you the proof, the debates on the last political event that we have for you can get people from both sides to listen to you, at the same time and watch at the same time, and all that you have to do is look at the television ratings, and the breakdown of the democrats and republicans -- republicans watched the republican convention,

democrats watched the democratic convention, and the washington of today is not the same as in 1969, the democrats and republicans don't like to be in the same rooms and they don't like the folks back home to think that they are consorting with the enemy but they will sit through listening to barack obama so they can hear what mitt romney has to say and democrats will do the same. and this is the last event where you can say this. this is a good thing. the evidence is that political polarization is worse at this time that has been forever and a day. >> political polarization is because of a lot of different anymore. you want.

if you want a conservative point of view, democratic, a liberal point of view, vegetarian view, you can find it, and the result is that people at one end of the spectrum simply are not always getting the full story. >> i have to point out, there are many scholars in this country who have done studies of the impact of the presidential debate on their luck -- the election itself and many of them have said that these debates are grand and wonderful things, but at the end of the day they don't mean all that much to the voters. by the time of these debates,

-- people have more or less made up their minds and it is much more like in 1992, it is issues that affect individuals who are going in to both that this wonderful and informative television debate. >> there is no question that the economy is what the elections are about. but i would point out to the scholars that there were two chefs in public opinion during this campaign. the first one came after the first debate. when suddenly, here came romney and people said, that look like obama was going to run away with it, and the second change came at the end of the democratic convention, after the speech by bill clinton. these chefs do change minds and i think fat they are one of the best parts of the campaign

process and i think that we need to have more debates. >> but let me say to the scholars, they overlook the obvious and maybe that is why they are scholars. [laughter] no, that is applied -- that is not a put down. scholars need to go beyond the obvious. that is what makes them scholars. what is obvious is that 64 million people watched the first debate. four years ago was about the same number and there was no two-one change like there was in 2012 of what the debates too, they are confirming exercises. and the scholars tend to say, they did not change any votes and as a consequence the debates did not matter. people watch those debates, all

the democrats and republicans watch, and if you are a republican you are watching your candidate in your already leaning that way. i liked this guy, and i am taking the measure, and there is a small percentage of people who are legitimately undecided. but the debate is for everyone. and what this does is rally the supporters as much as it does, -- as much as it causes people to change their minds or make a decision, and to me, that is hugely important. >> in these debates, as a participant -- who has the advantage, the incumbent or the challenger? the incumbent because he can excel -- he can speak with

greater authority, or the challenger, because he does not have a greater authority? >> it depends on who the incumbent is, and the non- incumbent. i know that -- going into my debate there was being written, about how paul ryan must be -- he must be studying up on foreign policy. but on the other end, people wrote that joe biden was more nervous because he did not know a fair bit about. -- foreign policy. with the incumbent maybe you have to go over a higher bar, and as the non-incumbent you just have to prove yourself. >> was there any question you could come up with, was the one

that you could have passed either one of the candidates that may have put them off stride for a moment? >> all three of us think -- i wish i had asked this, or that way, but it, i did not try to do that, i just wanted to know what they knew. and there is this line that you don't want to look like a complete jerk. you don't want to ask that question in a way that makes you look like it is just too cute, or were you trying to throw them off, let's go back to bernie shaw. i was out there as a somewhat young reporter, a local tv reporter and i remember hearing that in los angeles, and it was stunning. in the end, talk about a debate

that changes things. >> the s, if this wife was raped would he believe in the death penalty. and i love that -- michael dukakis said, he was over brief that he had his answer is there and he did not think about it. there is just the moment where the moderator my ask, there is the over-briefing. one of the debates with the cheney and joseph lieberman, lieberman has staring directly in the camera the whole time, he seemed to weigh more brief. >> bernie shaw has the view that if he has the opportunity to talk to someone who may be president of the united states, or who is, it is not special

that this is a presidential debate. if you have the opportunity to ask a question about a major issue, take the opportunity because most of the time, in his view, the politician will use you and your network to sell his point of view and himself. if you have the opportunity to do your thing and ask the tough questions, that is the bernie shaw line. we learned in 1960 that kennedy arrived tan, rested, ready, and nixon was pale, 5 o'clock shadow, restless. at that time, studies suggested

that kennedy won the debate on television but nixon won on radio. he came across as authoritative. you guys have been at this. what is important in our world of television that is so critical? what is the key thing? a wonderful, clear policy presentation or wearing the kind of socks you are today. really lovely socks. what grabs you like mondale in 1984, where's the beef. senator, you are no jack kennedy. the line or the more structured presentation. >> people vote for president. this is a different vote from

anything you have to cast. if you vote for councilman, you vote for issues. will he keep 7-11 up on sundays? will he zone your neighborhood to keep out mini-warehouses. but the vote for president is different and most studies suggest people vote for the person they have the most confidence in in a time of national crisis. i happen to think this is a good reason. in that case, communication skills do matter. the american people are not stupid. they are generally pretty smart. they pick the right candidates. you get a fuller picture of the

person running for president, not just the talking points but you get to see him react and how he reacts when the pressure is on. >> or she. >> or she, next time around. >> the ability to communicate is critical. you can have the greatest ideas in the world but if you can't communicate them, forget it. >> that is about leadership. it is not just a performance in a debate, it is leadership. >> i want to test you on a different narrative. there were 10 million tweets in the first debate.

the most ever in american politics. if this was important to you as a moderator. if it was important, or if this fact alone has any importance at all, please explain it to me. i want to stop with martha. >> twitter -- it is out there. there are voices out there with influence. we as journalists -- it is a great journalistic tool. >> how did it effect you as a moderator? >> i had some strange press the day before, for 15 minutes, rattled me. i will tell you. it effected me as a mom. my son is on twitter all the time. if he is in the bedroom, "are you coming to dinner." but there was such nasty stuff.

>> directed at you? >> but my son said, "mom, there are crazy people who write mean things." he's a football player. he said, "they have three followers." they all live in basements with 75 cats. [laughter] what i want to do is a reality where i find those people and say, "what do you mean, you don't like my hair? yours isn't great either." [laughter] >> do these bother you? >> i got millions of critical tweets, i understand. i didn't read them. >> you're a better person than i am. >> it -- quick story. when that debate was over, we went to dinner, kate and our

kids and i came away from the denver hall to the hotel where we're having dinner, we talked about the debate and that stuff. we were just talking about the debate. donesn't that obama had poorly or that i was a fool. then one of the people at the table had one of these gadgets. >> like a twitter gadget. >> one of our friends -- they are tweeting this. >> they are saying all kinds of things. some of the stuff, you don't want to know. that was the end of it. then i heard about these millions of tweets and knew some were critical. the bottom line, i felt good about that debate.

no tweet and twitter, ten million twitters and tweets -- weren't going to change my view of that. >> hashtag bobs purple socks. let's see how many we can get. >> relating to the new technology. we are caught right now in twin revolutions with politics and jouranlism and one -- journalism and one effects the other. your sense as a long-time political observer, with the impact of the new technology on the politics. >> it turned everything upside down. when i was a young reporter for the "fort worth star telegram." about 10 days out, there would be a whispering campaign that

one of the candidates had a girlfriend on the east side. all the girlfriends live on the east side. as a reporter, we'd go check it out. if it amounted to anything we may do something. ever't remember if it amounted to anything. now, there are no whispering campaigns. if someone has a rumor, someone write sit on a blog and it is out there. we as journalists, we treat them as news tips. we'd never broadcast it unless it was true. not everyone follows the standards of mainstream journalism. the politicians have to decide -- to i ignore this and hope it

goes away. there is an old financial recourse. if i make a mistake and libel somebody, cbs has deep pockets. you will sue this guy in the basement with the cat? there is nothing you can do about it. we are trying to come to grips and handle it. it has changed everything with how politics operate. >> let's look ahead to 2016, and look to the future for a moment. both of you said earlier you'd prefer there be more debates rather than fewer. do you think in this age of social media, where the patience of the american people is measured by the length of a

tweet is limited. do you think they'd be able to tolerate more 90-minute discussions of serious issues? >> we get 60 million to watch them. maybe they would. what i want to see is six debates with the first coming immediately after the last political convention. if the democrats are last, next week, have the debate, if the republicans are last, next week, have the debate. i think they can set the tone. if you can have that first debate as quickly as possible it could change the tone of the debate itself. at least it would get it off to a serious start. i would also say -- since you asked me, i think the right

format is to have the two candidates seated at a table with the moderator. that seems to work. the last two, that is the format. i think you can exercise better control instead of standing behind a podium. if the debate commission asked me. tell them. i would suggest to do away with the town hall forum. it does not work in my view, with too much show business into it. you get the candidates performing and walking over and getting in the other guy's face. >> it shows something about the candidates. i would say -- i like the four debates.

i was done with those debates. you talked it up perfectly. >> the idea, jim, of doing a debate -- if we do more debates, if that idea is seriously considered, what about doing that 90 minutes on one subject? dothat is why i'd want to six. you can -- have one subject for the whole 90 minutes, and do it by subject rather than format. and what people think about the town halls, my experience, the moderator chooses the question. there get 22 questions, is no give and take. it's not a real town hall. but it does have some appeal. in terms of the subject, it is not the place -- the town hall

meeting is a different kind of thing. but if you did one subject at a time, i think the evidence is out there and the public would watch this. 67 million people sat at the television and watched those debates. another 16 or 20 people,there were 100 million people watching some or all of the first debate, and the same numbers continued through them all. >> we have a little more than a minute to go. i want to ask -- martha, why do you think they asked you to do a debate? >> i don't know. maybe because i wasn't covering the campaign? i was covering the whitehouse

and i -- that wasn't my favorite assignment. >> if they asked you in 2016? >> it is an honor. that is all i will say. i hope i was chosen for my body of work and that i am a reporter people trust. that is all i can say. >> why you think the commission came to you for the third time to do these debates? >> i was cheap. [laughter] i have no idea. maybe because i am older. >> what to do it again? >> i do not think so. i think i have served my time here. it is a great honor. i think i will quit while i'm

ahead. >> last time you're here i ask you this question and you said no on 2012 but you did it. in 10 seconds are you going to tell me why you are going to say yes again in 2016? >> the answer is "no." [laughter] >> friends and colleagues, i wanted to know that our time is up. you are all familiar with the tyranny of the clock. i want to close with an obvious editorial point. i think these presidential debates are absolutely essential to the democratic process. they have to go on and they should continue. i want to extend my thanks to our wonderful and attentive audience, to our terrific panel of moderator's, and to all of

you out there who cherish a free guide -- a free, vibrant press as a guarantor of a free, vibrant society. i am marvin kalb, good night and good luck. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, what we do now is there are microphones right back there and right over here. if you have a question to the microphone and i will recognize you. but i am going to recognize you for a question. if you begin to make a speech i probably will cut you off. so do not do it and do not make

me be a mean guy. if it is good for you you can address it to the person you would like an answer from. so the start right back there. >> thank you. >> if you do not mind, and give us your name and who you are associated with. >> i am joseph, i am 55 miles south in springfield, virginia. you had a great question -- you asked if these debates to promote democracy. i have two problems with them, the people who are up there are just the major party candidates. my question is other than -- the

other three did not follow the rules which were pretty simple. were they asked to be given one minute a piece? >> i hear ya. thank you very much. would somebody on the platform like to answer that question? >> i think we did follow the rules. these were 15 minute segments. they posed a question, the other person had a response and they discussed it. >> those were not the rules. >> another debate. >> i do not want to get into a debate here. >> what is the next question over here? >> i am from george washington university. i would like to ask a question

that arguably played a role in the outcome of the election, climate change. what would it take for climate change to become one of those issues like national security or the economy that the public expects reporters to automatically ask of any politician? >> that is a good question. >> i had domestic policy in the first debate. i arranged my things by subject that i thought were the most important. i would cut from the bottom depending on how the discussions ram. climate change was on my list. it was one of my huge frustrations about the way it did go. the debate itself was fine. but it was limiting in terms of the number of subjects and climate change went by the boards because of that. and i made that decision sitting

there. immigration, there were some other things that did not get into there. >> was the fiscal cliff part of the issue that you did not get to? >> the fiscal cliff came up. i decided we said enough about it. >> i am matthew. i wanted to ask -- there was a curve awful -- a kerfuffle about the fact that the president attended your wedding. do you think that was handled right? given a second chance would you do it differently? >> i did not do anything. i am not an comment about that.

that happened two days before the debate. it was in "the new york times" quite a while before that. i had to put that out of my head. that had nothing to do with what i did at the debate. >> thank you. >> my name is steve, i work in news business. to the extent that you all have been familiar with pl or ep, share some anecdotes if you could about a plan the stage manager and keeping these people on time. >> i will tell you a quick anecdote. my first debate in 1988, george bush versus michael dukakis -- halfway into the debate, the

light cues -- the time queues were lights. greenlight said you could talk, and yellow light was start wrapping it up, and yellow light was -- rabbi was shut up. -- rabbi was shut up. -- red light was shut up. in my ear i heard the voice of the executive producer saying that he had more time. in front of everybody i had known in my whole life i said, "mr. vice president, you're right." he said, "i forgot what i was going to say." i wanted the biggest hole in the

world to drop in. i am not color blind. i still do not know how i got it wrong. >> i am a national columnist's club member. what do it gingrich have won after his debate in south carolina if he had repeated that performance instead of falling asleep? and likewise, would have obama all lost -- lost the election after the first debate if he repeated that performance in the next two debates? does that make the case that style is more important than substance? what is your reaction to that? >> these are questions we will never know the answer to.

i think where governor romney made a mistake -- i think governor romney thought he was ahead going into the third debate. there were not many polls that suggest that. based on some reporting, i believe he thought he was a head when he went into that debate. he sort of went into what a football team does when they are ahead in a game. he went into a defense. i think that hurt him because i do not think by that time he was ahead. one of the things i based this on -- i started out that debate asking him up pretty pointed question about benghazi.

republicans were really criticizing the president for this. this was the place where if gov. romney really wanted to take on the president he could have. and he didn't. he skipped by that question and went on to something else. i think he was afraid that he did not want to appear overly aggressive and i think that was probably a mistake on his part. i think that is a mistake he made. >> and the reverse is true in the first debate. obama thought he was the one who was ahead it and thought he could coast. he paid the price for it. >> my name is kevin, i am in washington d.c. resident. my question is regarding the earlier statements that we should approach the debates not only as journalists to challenge the candidates but as

moderator's to facilitate. most americans are now watching news that compare to their political views. democrats to msn dc and republicans on fox. the you think that changes the role of how the moderator should approach it? >> i was not one who said i did not approach this as a journalist. i do think this is a place where you are there to give these candidates a chance and an opportunity to show who they are. i do believe when one candidate says something it is the responsibility of the other candidate, if there is an error

or a discrepancy, it is up to the other candidate to point that out. you are trying to find out who these people are and what they are about. you're trying to find out what they would do if they are quite to be confronted with the situations that are going to come up with the presidency. you are not elected the moderator, you are lifting the president. -- you are selecting a president. we are not all getting the same stuff anymore. the only way you can be truly informed is to consult a variety of sources before you make up your own mind. >> that the add to that. obviously you are functioning as a journalist. but not in a way that i would be if i were doing something on the

news hour or if bob was doing it on tbs. it is a different form with a different purpose. the skills are involved that i use and bob and martha use -- our basic journalism skills. you have to know what is going on and you have to know how to ask a question. those are journalism skills. thank you for the opportunity to correct myself. >> my name is ian, i go to george washington university. i am an engineering student. one of the things i loved about the debates is the serve to detach these candidates from these big campaign machines and lets you see them for who they are as people. where you think the right line is between "gotcha" questions and questions that cannot hit the point in terms of getting

the candidates to be real humans. >> i will answer this shortly. i think what you are trying to do is your is get people to say what they mean. not to say something they did not mean. we are trying to find out what is the belief. that is why i do not think the "gotcha" thing works. if somebody were to ask me who the president of some country is i would not know what the answer is. i do not think that has anything to do with whether or not i am informed person. it is not my specialty. i think that is where the line is. you are trying to get people to say who they are and what they mean and why they have taken the positions they have taken. not to try to mix them up. you will find out soon enough

that they know what they are talking about. >> one of the things you are trying to do is be really fair. let them talk about what they want to talk about. i think the difference here between intervening is that if i ask a question and i want an answer to that question, if they do not answer it i will try to press it. if someone is trying to challenge them on accuracy, that is very different. there is a point of view -- if people intervene and say that is not the way that happened, there is not always an absolute truth to those things. i think if there is a clear answer to a question you do have "wait a minute it was

4:00, not 3:00." >> there was a suggestion to what you said a moment ago, the american people for two years prior to the time you had these presidential debates were listening but not learning anything. it was up to you guys to come in with that moment of epiphany where you ask the question and 60 million people watch and suddenly we believe understand what it is they are saying. why should we believe that the candidate trying for two years and probably 20 before that to be president of the united states say something different to you, more meaningful and honest, that he has been trying to say for two years. >> if you are looking for a candidate to say something different, for gannett. that is not what these debates

are about. it is the opposite. you want to know what these people believed. >> may be those of us, it is our business to follow the campaigns mitt by minute. most people are not doing it. -- most people are not doing that. >> you do have to change -- >> they want to hear somebody say -- maybe they said it 100 times. but they are hearing it for the first time. >> and hearing it in a comparative way. >> yes. i read that somewhere. it is all part of an overall process. >> i am a young professional

here in dc. earlier you said all presidential elections come down to the economy. the argument can be made the president obama won a second term on social issues. what we have been served better if the discussions during these debates centered more on the economy? >> i do think, in the end, this one came down to the economy. the president may be basing his second term on social issues. if you take his inauguration speech as sort of a guidepost for where he wants to go from here -- i did not hear him talk a lot about, during the campaign, he seemed to be talking about jobs and getting people back to work. i think the economy began to get better. i did not see him spending a lot of time talking about gay rights

during the election. i did not hear him talk about gun control. i think it was mentioned once in one of the debates. i think he thought -- that his people thought that they had -- what they concentrated on -- in some ways this was not so much an election about issues as it was about identifying their voters and getting their voters through polls and recognizing that the demographic in this country where changing demographic -- were changing dramatically. the republicans did not do as well as getting people to the polls. i think the core message was the economy. >> i think this is the last question. >> this question is for martha. you seem to have gotten a lot of criticism during the vice- presidential debate for allowing

joe biden to run all over you. the cost of laughing, interrupting paul ryan, particularly when he was talking and armed iraq. -- talking about an armed iran. >> i want to answer you fairly. you are as fair as you can possibly be when you are up there. i think we came out of that debate and joe biden had 45 seconds more than congressman ryan tweet i think congressman ryan thought it was there. that is all i can fake. -- that is all i can say. congressman ryan could not have been nicer. both of them thought it was fair.

>> we have run out of time. the distinction that has been made tonight between moderate and reporter and serving as a moderator in these presidential debates -- we have a rich pool of two analysts in this country because it is a free country. i want to make the point that this weekend we lost one of the really great reporters. the kind of reporting stanley did in vietnam, the 13 part series he did and his book, are going to leave all of us enriched by the spirit and energy and diligence that he put

into that work. we are all admonished by his the marcher. -- by his departure. good journalism is the essence, it is at the heart of an open society. as long as we have good journalists we will continue to have a free and open society. thank you all so much for joining us. [applause] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [indiscernible]

>> in just about half an hour we will take you live to las vegas. president obama will be speaking about immigration. we understand that could get away -- that could get under way a bit early. we will follow that with your comments on the issue of immigration. up until then we are going to bring you yesterday's news conference with democrats and republicans, unveiling their bipartisan immigration proposal. >> first we want to thank everybody for joining us. we are here to announce that the five of us here today, and eight

of us in total, have come together on a set of bipartisan principles for comprehensive legislationreform that we hope can pass in bipartisan fashion. we still have a long way to go. but this bipartisan blueprint is a major breakthrough. it is our hope that these principles can be turned into legislation by march and have a markup by chairman leahy's committee with the goal of adage by the senate by late spring. he strongly supports this effort. the key to our compromise is to

recognize that americans overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration and support legal immigration. to this and our from work contains four basic pillars. first we create a tough but fair path to citizenship and for illegal immigrants currently living in the united states that is contingent on securing our borders. second we reform our legal immigration system to recognize the importance of characteristics that will help build the american economy and strengthen the american families. third we create employment verification system that will prevent identity theft and the hiring of future unauthorized workers. and lastly we established an improved process for allowing workers to serve our nation's workforce needs while simultaneously protecting old workers.

other bipartisan groups and senators have stood in the same spot before, trumping similar proposals. we believe this will be the year congress finally gets this done. the politics on this issue have been turned upside down. for the first time ever there are more oppositions to immigration reform fan support. -- there is more support than opposition for immigration reform. our colleagues are making a significant statement about the need to fix the broken immigration system. we do not want immigration as a walk -- as a wage issue. we want a bipartisan bill that solves the problem and becomes law. we recognize that in order to pass bipartisan legislation none

of us can get everything we want. that is why our from works as we can address the status of people living here legally while at the same time securing our borders and create an immigration enforcement system that ensures that we will not again confront another 11 million people coming here illegally. on a one of our bill, the people here without status who are not criminals will be able to work here legally. that will make it easier for them to learn english and integrate into their community without fear of deportation. to prove to the american people that we are serious about permanently ending illegal immigration to the u.s., we say that we will never put these individuals on a path to citizenship until we fully secure our borders and combat and the pattern of people overstaying their legal immigration visas. we are asking our colleagues in

the senate and house to join us in this difficult work. it is time to work together to pass legislation that improves our security come across our economy, and ensures that we will continue to be a nation tot lives up to the valuesi'm r senator mccain in a minute. i want to say he has been the grew in our group. his wisdom and strength and courage, his steadfastness and many other adjectives that i'll skip at the 340e789 have really been inspiring to me and all of us. and i want to just say -- you want me to go on? and i want to say that every member of your group, including senator gram who couldn't be here, senator mccain has a statement from him, have really been terrific in terms of understanding that we have to come to an agreement, we have to meet in the middle. that the mission of getting a bill done to strengthen america is more important than any of us clinging to a specific belief.

and so i'm optimistic. i'm truly optimistic, more than i was when we had our first meeting in december that we can get this done. and i want to thank every one of the members here. it's been so far -- we're only a part of the way done but it's been a great experience so far and one that gives all six of us a great deal of optimism. >> i'd like to thank you the senator for his leadership. i'd like to thank the democratic leader. there has not been anyone in america who has fought harder for the so-called dreamers than dick durbin has and he will continue to have the gratitude of many americans. my friend senator rubio who is a new important voice in this immigration reform. senator menendez and senator

gram who is uncharacteristically absent from this gathering. as the senator mentioned it has a first step in what will be continue to be difficult but achievable. i don't have to remind anyone the last major attempt was six years ago. we will again attempt to get the resources to secure the border, streamline our immigration system and create a tough but fair path to citizenship for those here illegally. and i would like to testify again t security situation along the southwest border is not perfect. there remains several areas, particularly in arizona where people's homes are being invade and drug smug letters are crossing every night and they deserve the same level of security all of us have.

there is no question, there has been a significant reduction in illegal crossings over the past five years. apprehension by the border control have dropped 70% from 2005 to 2012. but their work is not yet complete. greater focus need to be paid to drug traffickers and criminals that cross the border. arizona continues to be a major smuggling corridor and hub for drug trafficking organizations. to combat this, we need to invest in high-technology, proven surveillance systems that will give the border patrol ability to detect and apprehend illegal entries into the united states. it's achievable and can be completed within the next few years if we commit to it. the next important step is to ensure we don't repeat the mistakes of 1986 where we gave amnesty to 3 million people,

promised the border would be secure and we're dealing with 11 million people here illegally. so that has to have increase in fines on employers that knowingly hire illegal workers. we have to have employment verification system that will end the hiring of future unauthorized immigrants. we need to shut off the magnet that attracts illegal workers. we will put in place a legal worker program to provide a humane and effective system that allows immigrant workers to enter the country without seeking the aid of human traffickers or drug cartels. any legislation that pass congress must establish legal channels for workers to enter the united states whether they are high skill, low skill or agriculture workers so we can free up officials to focus on those individuals intending to

do our nation harm through drug smuggling, people trafficking and possibly terrorism. providing citizenship for dreamers, developing a measurement to determine when the board certificate truly secure. reforming our future immigration system to better meet the needs of our employers ensuring an exit system to combat visa overstays and creating a program that makes certain u.s. agriculture has the necessary workers to maintain america's food supply are some of the issues we've committed to addressing and solving in a bipartisan manner. and finally, we come to the most controversial piece of immigration reform and that's how to deal with the approximately 11 million people living in the united states outside of legal status. what is going on now is unacceptable. in reality what has been created is a de facto amnesty.

we have been too content for too long to allow individuals to mow our lawn, serve our food and even watch our children while not affording them any of the benefits that make our country so great. i think everyone agrees that it is not beneficial for our country to have these people here hidden in the shad dose. let's create a system to bring them forward. allow them to settle their debt to society and fulfill the in necessary requirements to become law abiding citizens of this country. this is consistent with our country's tradition of being a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. i'd like to read senator gram's brief statement. he says i hope the third time is a charm. i've enjoyed working with my colleagues in drafting these principles and believe we are off to a good start. the bipartisan principles

represent a break through on instance and i hope they will be seen as a break through in forming a coalition to solve our immigration problems. the coalition must also include the president and the house of representatives. my hope is this bill will start in the senate and receive an overwhelming bipartisan vote. we are a long way from having legislative language but i believe 2013 represents us the best chance to pass immigration reform in many years. with a reasonable amount of political give and take we will be successful. however, if we fail in our efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform, i do believe it will be many years before anyone is willing to try and solve this problem. we should have full understanding of how difficult it is. in the last couple of days we

have been able to invent a nuclear option in the senate. a lot of people don't appreciate how important it was for us to get that done. we were involved in a bipartisan efforts to pass that. thanks for the cooperation of our two leaders we were able to do that. there is a desire for bipartisan ship here in this body. i think we can show the country and the world that we are capable of tackling this issue, a looming and terrible issue that has to be resolved in a bipartisan basis. and i believe the majority of the american people support such an effort and i want to thank my colleagues again and the ever congenial senator. >> now senator durbin. >> i want to thank my colleagues, john mccain, thanks.

we've been down this road before but i feel good about our chances this time. chuck thank you for your leadership on this and bob and lindsay and i understand that you've been the force blind this. he's the glue, you're the force and it's worked. we've come to this moment. and here we are facing the issue of immigration. nothing new in america. this inflammation has been debating the issue of immigration since the first group got off the boot and wanted to know why the second boat was coming. but it is critical to remember that those immigrants whose d.n.a. we carry had something special in their make up to get up and move to come to this nation for a great opportunity they couldn't find in another place. that's part of what we are today. and secondly it says something about our nation about how many people want to come here in this opportunity for an expanding economy. they want to be here in america.

the third point is important, our immigration system is broken and has been broken for a long time. 16 years ago when i was elected to the senate, one of the first phone calls i received from ted kennedy. he said i want to let you know i'm chairman of the subcommittee. i need you on . >> we will take you now live to south las vegas. president obama speaking about immigration. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much. thank you. well, it is good to be back in las vegas. [applause] and it is good to be among so

many good friends. let me start off by thinking everybody at del sol high school for hosting us. [applause] go dragons. let me especially thing your outstanding principal. [applause] there are all kinds of notable guests here but i just want to mention a few. first of all, our outstanding secretary of the department of homeland security, and janet napolitano. [applause] our wonderful secretary of the interior ken salazar. [applause] former secretary of labor, hilda solis. [applause] two of the outstanding members of the congressional delegation from nevada, steve and gina.

[applause] your own mayor, carolyn goodman. [applause] we also have some mayors who flew in because they know how important issue we are to talk about today is. maria from arizona. qassim from atlanta, georgia. rick from phoenix, arizona. and ashley from fresno, calif. [applause] than all of you are here, as well as some of the top labor leaders in the country. we are so grateful. outstanding business leaders are here as well. of course, we have wonderful students here. [applause]

those of you have a seat, feel free to take a seat. i do not mind. . love you back [applause] last week, i had the honor of being sworn in for a second term as president of the united states. [applause] and during my inaugural address, i talked about how making progress on the finding challenges of our time does not require us to settle every debate or ignore every different we may have, but it does require us to find common ground and move forward in common purpose. it requires us to act. i know that some issues will be

harder to lift than others. some debates will be more contentious. that is to be expected. but the reason i came here today is because of the challenge where the differences are dwindling. we're a broad consensus is emerging. and where a call for action can now be heard coming from all across america. i am here today because the time has come for common sense, comprehensive immigration reform. the time has come. now is the time. [applause] now is the time. [applause] now is the time. now is the time. [applause]

i am here because most americans agree that it is time to fix the system that has been broken for way too long. i am here because business leaders, faith leaders, labor leaders, law enforcement, and leaders from both parties are coming together to say now is the time to find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see america as the land of opportunity. now is the time to do this, so we can strengthen our economy, and strengthen our country's future. think about it. we define ourselves as a nation of immigrants. that is who we are, in our bones. the promise we see in those that come here from every corner of the globe, that has always been one of our greatest strengths. it keeps our recourse young, a

key to our country on the cutting edge, and helped to build the greatest economic engine the world has ever known. after all, immigrants help to start businesses like google, and yahoo!, they created entire new industries that in turn created new jobs and new prosperity. in recent years, one in four high-tech start-ups in america were founded by immigrants. one in four new small business owners were immigrants, including right here in nevada. folks who came here seeking opportunity and now want to share that opportunity with other americans. but we all know that today we have an immigration system that is out of date and badly broken. a system that is holding us back, instead of helping us to grow our economy and strengthen our middle-class. right now, we have 11 million undocumented immigrants in america.

11 million men and women from all over the world who live their lives in the shadows. yes, they broke rules, they crossed the border illegally, maybe they overstayed their visas. those are the facts, nobody disputes them. but these 11 million men and women are here. many of them have been here for years. and the overwhelming majority of these individuals are not looking for any trouble. they are contributing members of the community. they are looking out for their families, looking out for their neighbors. they are woven into the fabric of our lives. every day, like the rest of us, they go out and try to earn a living. often, they do that in the shadow economy, a place where employers may offer them less than the minimum wage, or make

them work overtime without extra pay. and when that happens, it is not just that for them, it is bad for the entire economy. because all the businesses that are trying to do the right thing, hiring people legally, paying a decent wage, following the rules, they are the ones that suffer. they have to compete against companies that are breaking the rules. and the wages and working conditions of american workers are threatened, too. so if we are truly committed to strengthening our middle-class and providing more ladders of opportunity to those who are willing to work hard to make it into the middle-class, we have got to fix the system. we have to make sure that every business and every worker in america is playing by the same set of rules. we have to bring the shadow economy into the light so that everyone is held accountable. businesses for who they hire, and immigrants for getting on the right side of the law.

that is common sense. that is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. [applause] there is another economic reason why we need reform. it is not just about the folks that come here illegally, having the effect on our economy. it is also about the books that try to come here legally but have a hard time doing so, and the fact that has on our economy. right now, there are brilliant students from all over the world sitting in classrooms at our top universities. they are earning degrees in the fields of the future, like engineering and computer science. but once they finish school, once they're in that diploma, there is a good chance they will have to leave our country. think about that.

intel was starting with the help of an immigrant who studied here and stayed here. histogram the starting with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here. right now in one of those classrooms, there is a student wrestling with how to turn their big idea, there intel or instagram into a big business. we are giving them the skills to figure that out, but then we are going to turn around and tell them to start the business and create those jobs in china, or india, or mexico, or someplace else. that is not how you grow new industries in america. that is how you give new industries to our competitors. that is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. [applause] now, during my first term, we

took steps to try to patch up some of the worst cracks in the system. first, we strengthen security at the borders so that we could finally stem the tide of illegal immigrants. we put one puts on the ground on the southern border than in any other time in history. today, a legal crossings are down nearly 80% from their peak in 2000. [applause] second, we focused our enforcement efforts on criminals who are here illegally and in danger our communities. today, deportations of criminals is at its highest level ever. [applause] third, we took up the cause of the dreamers. the young people who were brought to this country -- [applause] young people who have grown up here, have their lives here, teachers here. we said if you are able to meet

basic criteria, like pursuing an education, then we will consider offering you the chance to come out of the shadows so that you can live here and work here illegally. so that you can finally have the dignity of knowing you belong. but because this change is not permanent, we need congress to act, and not just on the dream act. we need congress to act on a comprehensive approach that finally deals with the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are in the country right now. that is what we need. [applause] now, the good news is, or the first time in many years, republicans and democrats seem ready to tackle this problem together. [applause]

members of both parties in both chambers are actively working on a solution. yesterday, a bipartisan group of senators announced their principles for comprehensive immigration reform which are very much in line with the principles of a proposed and campaigned on for the last few years. so at this moment it looks like there is a genuine desire to get this done soon. and that is very encouraging. but this time, action must follow. we cannot allow immigration reform to get bogged down in an endless debate. we have been debating this for a very long time. it is not as if we do not know technically what needs to be done. as a consequence to help move this process along, today i am lying about my ideas for immigration reform, and my hope is this provides some key

markers to members of congress as the craft a bill, because the ideas i am proposing have traditionally been supported by both democrats like ted kennedy , and republicans like president george h.w. bush. -- george w. bush. you do not get that match up very often. we know where the consensus should be. of course, there will be rigorous debate about many of the details. and every stakeholder should engage in real give-and-take in the process. but it is important for us to recognize that the foundation for bipartisan action is already in place, and if congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, i will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away. [applause]

so, the principles it are pretty straightforward. there are a lot of detail behind it. we will hand out a bunch of papers so everyone knows we're talking about. but the principals are straightforward. first, i believe we need to stay focused on enforcement. that means continuing to strengthen security at our borders. it means cracking down more forcefully on businesses that knowingly hire undocumented workers. to be fair, most businesses want to do the right thing, but a lot of them have a hard time figuring out who is here illegally and who is not, so we need to implement a national system that allows businesses to quickly verify some one's employment status. and if they still knowingly hire

undocumented workers, the need to wrap up the penalties. second, we have to deal with the 11 million individuals who are here illegally. we all agree that these men and women should have to earn their way to citizenship. but for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a clear to reach a clear path to citizenship. [applause] we have got to lay out a path. a process that includes passing a background check, paying taxes, paying a penalty, learning english, and then going to the back of the line, beyond all the folks who are tried to come here legally. that is only fair. that means it will not be a

quick process, but it will be a fair process and will lift these individuals out of the shadows and give them a chance to earn their way to a green card and eventually to citizenship. [applause] and the third principle is we have to bring our legal immigration system into the 21st century. it no longer reflects the values of our time. for example, if you are a citizen, you should not have to wait years before your family is able to join you in america. [applause] he should not have to wait years -- you should not have to wait years. if you are a foreign student who was to pursue a career in science or technology, or a foreign entrepreneur that wants to start a business with the backing of american investors, we should help you do that here. because if you succeed, you will

create american businesses and american jobs. you will help us grow our economy, strengthen our middle- class. so that is what comprehensive immigration reform looks like. smarter enforcement, at a pathway to earn citizenship, improvements in the legal immigration system so that we continue to be a magnet for the best and brightest all around the world. it is pretty straightforward. the question now is simple. do we have the result -- resolve as a people, as a country, as a government, to finally put this behind us? i believe that we do. [applause] i believe that we do. [applause] i believe we are finally at the moment where comprehensive immigration reform is within our

grasp. but i promise you this, the closer we get, the more emotional this debate will become. immigration has always been an issue that inflames passions. that is not surprising. there are few things that are more important to us as a society than who gets to come here and call our country home. who gets the privilege of becoming a citizen of the united states of america. that is a big deal. when we talk about that in the abstract, it is easy sometimes for the discussion to take on a feeling of loss versus them. and when that happens a lot of folks forget that most of us used to be them. we forget that. it is really important for us to remember our history.

unless you are one of the first americans, native american, you came from someplace else. somebody brought you. insellas are -- ken salizasar points out his family has been living where he lives for 400 years. he did not immigrate anywhere. the irish who left behind the land of famine. the germans who fled persecution. the scandinavian to our right eager to pioneer out west. the polish, russian, italian, chinese, japanese, west indians. the huddled masses that came through ellis island and angel island on the other.

all of those folks before there were us there with them -- they were them. when each new wave of immigrants arrived they faced resistance from those already here. they faced hardship. they faced racism. they faced reticule. over time as they went about their daily lives, as they earned a living, raised a family, built a community, as their kids went to school here they did their part to build the nation. they when einstein's, carnegies, but also the millions of women and men whose names history may not remember but whose actions helped to make as who we are,

who built this country hand by hand, burke by brick. ck by brick. they all came here knowing what makes someone an american is not just blood or birth, but allegiance to our founding principles. and the face in the idea that anyone from anywhere cannot write the next great chapter of our story. that is still true today. just ask alan. he is here today. there he is. now, he was born in mexico. he has -- he was brought to this

country when he was a child. growing up he went to an american school. pledge of allegiance to the american flag. felt american in every way, and he was, except for one, on paper. in high school he watched his friends become of age, driving around town with their new license, earning extra cash from summer jobs at the mall. he knew he could not do those things. it did not matter that much. what mattered was earning an education so he could learn -- make it to his god-given potential. whenever the chance to emerge from the shadows, he was one of the first to sign up. a few months ago he was one of the first people in nevada to

get approved. [applause] in that moment allen that said i felt accepted. so today he is in the second year of the college of nevada. he is studying to become a doctor. he hopes to join the air force. he is working hard every single day to build a better life for himself and his family. all he wants is the opportunity to do his part to build a better america. so in the coming weeks, as the

idea of reform becomes more real and the debate becomes more heated and there are folks that are trying to pull this thing apart, remember alan and all those who share the same hopes and dreams. remember that this is not just a debate about policy. it is about people. and it is about men and women and young people who want nothing more than the chance to earn their way into the american story. throughout our history that has only made our nation strong guard, and how we will make sure this century is the same as the last, an american century welcoming of everybody who

aspires to do something more. and is willing to work hard to do it. willing to pledge the allegiance to our flag. thank you. but the issue, and god bless the united states of america. i♪

h[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> president obama at del sol

high school and lost big is laying out him is -- legging out his immigration priorities. -- in las vegas. we're opening up the phone calls to get your thoughts on immigration. here are the numbers to use if you are a democrat 202-585-385. republicans 202-585-386. also, if you are on twitter, #immigration. as we have been doing throughout the day, opening up facebook. the question there, same one we are asking this afternoon, what are your priorities on immigration policy? albert in maine. caller: ok, in french that is

pronounced cartier. i agree wholeheartedly with the president on his policies, but someone should alert the president that the greatest immigration group in the united states was the st. lawrence seaway to chicago to des moines, all through the mississippi valley down to new orleans. remember, the louisiana purchase was from france. he did not include them in the immigrants from other worlds. someone should tell the president that this is a tremendous oversight. host: you are in a border state. is there still could turn and main about immigration? caller: not much concern

now, but he cited the american population of the united states by not matching them as one of the originals. host: rose on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm a third-generation mexican- american, and i am proud of my heritage. i hope that this president does the right saying by immigrants coming to our country. i do not think it should just be handed to them if they a big year for a long time. they need to follow the rules. i like what is happening in our country right now. host: rose mentioned her mexican heritage. here is a comment that a number people have commented. most of us used to be them before they were us here again

paraphrasing president obama from his speech. reno, nev., up next. joe on the independent line. caller: first of all, al is right about the french. i'm originally from green bay, wisconsin. the hispanics, we took this from them. i call it a greater return. we took this illegally from them. we just placed how many ranchers throughout the west, especially california. look at california. san francisco. spanish missions were all the way up the coast until they ran to the russians in the bay area. hispanics took over our neighborhood, the old neighborhood where i used to live. the neighborhood has just

blossomed. the reinvigorated the wells avenue corridor, which is small businesses and one not. that is the way i look at it. host: prison at all, speaking today after a group of bipartisan senators spoke. -- president obama speaking today after a group bipartisan senators announced their policy. senator rubio spoke about the undocumented, 11 million undocumented workers, immigrants in the country. here is what he had to say. >> if you are here undocumented, you must come forward. if you have committed serious crimes in the united states, you will be deported. if you're not committed serious crimes, you will have to pay back taxes and a fine. what you will get is basically the equivalent of a non-

relevant be set. you are not qualified for financial benefits. as a non-immigrant visa holder you do not qualify under existing law right now, you do not qualify for federal benefits. what you get is a work permit, the ability to be here illegally. we know you wear -- we know where you work. this is not a fine. there is nothing you can do but stay here to work and travel to visit relatives. you cannot turn that into citizenship. it is a non-immigrant visa. they will have to remain in this process for a significant amount of time, not an unreasonable amount of time but significant amount of time. after that time has elapsed, and if they have complied with the requirements of the probationary time, and it is certified that the enforcement mechanism is are in place and have happened, that is critical, then and only then do we then go

to phase two. phase two is we will now go to these folks and say you will be given the opportunity to apply for a green card using the same process that anyone in the world would use. this is what they should of done to begin with. all it will do is eventually give them a chance to apply to where they should have applied to in the beginning. host: senator rubio earlier today. here is a tweet from travis. he says principle no. 2, a deal with the 11 million already here illegally with a pathway to citizenship. back to calls. democrats line. make sure you mute your telephone. caller: i just want to say we bring in 1.2 5 million illegal

immigrants in this country every year. -- 1.25 million illegal immigrants in this country every year. what will happen to this process? i just did not understand our policies and priorities. host: the president says in terms of process it will not be a quick process but a fair process. a tweet from arizona chamber of commerce. marcan alabama on the independent line. -- mark in alabama. caller: i like all people. i do not have problems with the mexicans being here, but i think they need to pay taxes like as american workers. they need to pay taxes like us.

host: you are still on the air. go ahead. caller: i do not have a problem with them being here. and i can understand making a good living, but i think they need to pay taxes just like us american workers. host: let's hear from the democrats line. carmen in washington, d.c. caller: hi. happy new year. i am 65 years old. i am just thinking god i have lived to see an african-american president be elected twice, and now live to see some kind of recognition so all the people that have made this country great. it just did not have been just

from one collective social group. i am thrilled and happy that this is now coming to the end. i also want to say that not only did people from europe, from mexico, from all over the world -- african americans, we were brought here in chains and bondage. we built this country for free. we did not have an opportunity to pay taxes, because we were not paid any money to extract taxes from. but i am just happy because we have got to come together as one human race, or i am telling you, this planet will dissolved itself and will not be anybody here.

host: carmen in washington, d.c. ed in indiana. caller: yes, i tell you what, i always agree with a lot of the politicians, and i really do not agree with what obama has done. i have been married to an illegal immigrant for 10 years. we have had her in the process of trying to get her citizenship, and all the government has done is taken her money. when i met her over 10 years ago she was paying taxes and working every day. she filed at the end of the year and got a refund just like everybody else. not all of them do that, but she went through the process and got a nine digit number to report taxes, and that is the way she was and that is the way we keep it. we raise our kids to be honest, always tell the truth, never

light and never tried to get anything you do not deserve. not all of the illegal immigrants are like that, but that is the way i run my house. hopefully if this thing go through, she can actually go to work and help me out a little bit, because i bust my butt every day to support my wife and two kids. host: stephen dennis says there is their own immigration but a split of -- their own immigration legislative language but they plan to let the senate take the lead on this. president obama in his comments talked about the importance of the white house and congress working together to produce legislation. >> during my first term we took steps to try to patch up some of the worst cracks in the system. first, we strengthen security at

the border so we could finally stem the tide of illegal workers. we put more boos on the ground on the southern border at than at any time in our history. to date illegal crossings are down nearly 80% from the peak in early 2000. [applause] second, we focused our enforcement efforts on criminals who are here you illegally and to endanger our communities. today deportations of criminals is at the highest level ever. third, we took up the cause of the dreamers, the young people who were brought to this country -- [cheers and applause] young people of grown up here, built their lives here and have futures here. we said if you are able to meet basic criteria like pursuing education, then we will consider offering you the chance to come

out of the shadows there you can live here and work here legally so you could finally have the dignity of knowing you belong. but, because this change is not permanent, we need congress to act. not just on the dream act. we need congress to act on a comprehensive approach that finally deals with the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are in the country right now. that is what we need. now the good news is for the first time in many years republicans and democrats seem ready to tackle this problem together. members of both parties in both chambers are actively working on a solution.

yesterday, a bipartisan group of senators announced their principles for comprehensive immigration reform that were very much in line with the principles i propose and campaigned on for the past few years. so at this moment it looks like there is a genuine desire to get this done soon, and that is very encouraging. but, this time action must follow. we cannot allow immigration reform to get bogged down in an endless debate. we have been debating this for a very long time. host: prison at obama just a short while ago in -- president obama just a short while ago in las vegas. senator mccain it released a statement. he said i appreciate the president's approach. we recognize any reform must

recognize america as a nation of laws and immigrants. a reminder we will have a few more calls. if you do not get through, you can check out the facebook page for the conversation we started this morning. the calller is in california on the independent line. welcome. go ahead. caller: i want to say about marco rubio is statement about history. and he has to remember, a lot of us came here when we were children. we grew up to be like any other american child. a lot of them became drug addicts. a lot of them became criminals.

we have all the temptations that all-american kids have nowadays. kids get into drugs. we do become a product of society. we are a member of society nowadays. we do have a criminal history, but they have to understand we have asked for our day in court to show them we do have better means for our families nowadays. nowadays -- i have a child now. i am not into drugs no more. i am not into being a hoodlum.

i am a productive member of society. i would like to have my day in court to show the judge i have been a productive member of society now. host: think you for calling in. one more call on the democrats' line. -- thank you. caller: i am calling because i listened to the president and what he said. i wanted to address this issue when he set a lot of immigrants come in and put our neighborhoods in danger. i agree with that. i heard the young man from somewhere else in california, the calller before me, when he said they came in as children and grew up in did get in trouble. that is where their parents should have said we need to be a model citizens, that way we will not get in any trouble so they're able to become united

states citizens. and on the other know, what i was thinking is maybe if they came here and got an education, to get educated to get them a job and take what they have learned back to their own country, utilize it there and build their own country up, instead of wanting to stay here in the united states. we are overcrowded here in united states. host: appreciative the phone call. thank you for all your calls this afternoon. -- appreciate the phone call. we will show you the president's remarks tonight in prime time on cspan. ahead of that, george washington university former senator bob bennett of utah, don and words of maryland, james fallows, and republican from virginia are among the participants who will participate in a hypothetical

economic situations increases in order to provide policy solutions and ideas for prepared this. cessna will moderate that discussion. a hearing at looking at reducing gun violence, the senate judiciary committee tomorrow. witnesses will include captain mark kelly, co-founder of americans for responsible solutions and the husband of gabrielle giffords. also testifying tomorrow, the ceo of the national rifle association. that is tomorrow morning at 10:00 eastern. it will be live here on c-span and c-span radio and c-span.org. the senate is in today. a number of hearings today. we covered several of them, including the senate health committee. senator shelby talked about one of the impending dates that the house and senate must face come

march 1 and the sequestration date, another budget deadline that capitol hill faces. here is what he had to say. >> thank you very much for holding this hearing. you have drawn a big crowd because it is an important issue. up for theearing fiscal cliff that will be coming up in the next couple of weeks. for with that looming we are beginning to hear the usual refrain about how it is important to cut medicare benefits and to limit access to medicare for seniors, that that is the responsible things to do to save money, which is a preposterous and ill-informed idea, particularly in the context of a health care system that is 100 times more expensive than it was in 1960. if you look at the graph, it is an accelerating curve of up for

cost. when you look at a 2.7 trillion dollars annual expenditure on health care, that is probably 50 percent predicted the% inefficient penalty we pay compared to all of our -- 50% inefficient penalty we pay, compared to competitors. $800 billion per year spent unnecessarily. look at the scope of this and the accelerating pace of the increase in you think you will solve that by cutting medicare? it is simply not right. as the ceo of kaiser permanente tays said, that is an indirect way of thinking about health care. -- said, that is an indirect way of thinking about health care. hearings like this to address

the problem if we will not misdiagnose what we have come in once you have a misdiagnoses, you usually do not get the right here either. it is really important we not throw seniors in medicare under the bus because we have failed to address the real problem in health care, which is wild inefficiencies and rocketing costs that are not just in medicare. medicare is the most efficient deliver of medicare in the health-care system. if we get this right, 40% of the savings will come back to the federal budget, but the rest will go to kaiser, blue cross, united. businesses and families all across the country. we of a real fight in our hands to steer this in the right direction. i hope are hearing helps to help us make the right choice. >> the broader hearing was the health care physicians and the

united states. we'll show you that tonight. in about 40 minutes, on the floor of the u.s. senate, look for the senate vote on senator john kerry to be the next secretary of state. we expect that at 4:15 eastern. earlier today, a discussion on fact vs. fiction and what israel about the latest film of "zero dark thirty." among those participating, general michael hayden.

>> good morning. welcome to aei and this morning's panel, separating fact from fiction. i am a fellow at the american enterprise institute and member of the task force on detention and interrogation policy. kathryn piccolos recent film depicting the operation that killed osama bin laden sparked controversy. -- kathryn bigelow. for the most part of rage of the film has been coming from the left and directed at her. if you were a conservative like me, when you see the hollywood left and washington left, your temptation is to sit back, pop the popcorn and watch the fight. to some extent that is why many of the defenders and supporters stayed out of the debate. why interrupt why they are -- well they are fighting it out? the fact is, culture matters. many will form their opinions based on what they see on the

silver screen. it is important for those who know the truth to set the record straight. today we have a distinguished panel to help us do just that. three veterans of the cia who are directly involved in the cia interrogation program and the hunt for osama bin laden. michael hayden is the former director of the national security agency and director of the central intelligence agency. i got to know mike back in 2006 when i was a speechwriter in 2006. i was asked to write the president's speech revealing the existence of the cia interrogation program. he introduced me to the men and women who had actually conducted the interrogations'. men and women i grew to admire and respect a great deal and considered to be heroes. he is not only one of the smartest people i know, but one of the most compelling witnesses to the efficacy of the program. when he came to the office, the

program had been suspended and was not involved in the initial creation, so he conducted done in partial assessment. he gathered all the information and had to revise the president on whether or not to restart it. based on that he concluded he could not in good conscience advise the president ought to have an interrogation program. jose rodriguez, has spent 25 years in the field as an undercover officer becoming the head of the cia's counter- terrorism agency where he led a worldwide intelligence collection program and action program against al qaeda, including the interrogation program that is depicted in this movie. he is author of what i considered to be the best book written on the topic, "hard measures." he is, in my view, also an american hero. john rizzo, the former chief

legal officer of the cia. spent 45 years in office of general counsel. his been called the most influential career lawyer in the history of the cia. that is probably an understatement. in his memoir, he wrote when there is a crisis, despite what hollywood what have you believe, you do not call in the top guys, you call and the lawyers. -- call in the lawyers. he provided the legal advice that allowed the interrogators to get the information they needed while staying well within the bounds of the law and sacrifice personally in his service to our country and i am very glad to know him and that he has joined us here today. before we start the discussion, i thought it would be helpful to show a trailer of the phone to get a taste of it. -- the film get a taste of it. >> can i be honest with you?

i have bad news. i am not your friend. i am not going to help you. i am going to break you. any questions? i want to make something absolutely clear. if you thought there was some group going to come to the rescue, i want you to know you are wrong. this is it. there is nobody else. there is just us. and we are failing. >> you really believe this

story? osama bin laden? >> yeah. >> what part convinced you? >> the confidence. are right, the whole world will want to know this. >> you will never find him. ♪ >> all right. so, the progress of complaint

about this goes something like this, while the depiction of enhance their terror -- interrogation techniques, their role in finding osama bin laden is not accurate. i suspect most of our panelists would tend to disagree with that assessment. i would like to take those two topics. first, i would like to ask a simple question. it must have been a weird experience to see something you work so closely in your lives depicted in the film. what did you think of the movie? >> i like it. i turn to my wife after it was was glad i said it it was me. i am very glad the story was made. frankly, i am very happy because i read the top of this morning by mr. cohen -- the op ed by mr. cohen.

we will discuss the accuracy, historical and artistically inside, but does a masterful job in suggesting in the real world there are no right angles and no easy answers to very difficult situations. that, to me, was a great service. >> i also liked the movie. it was very entertaining, but it is a movie, and there were some things i really liked and things i did not like. i did not like, for example, the portrayal of the enhanced interrogation techniques. i did not like the fact that it made a false link between torture and intelligence successes. i also think torture does not work, and our programs work because it was not tortured. there were other things i liked

about the movie. i liked the fact that it conveyed that this was a 10-year marathon parian rather than a sprint -- rather than a sprint by a president, and the agency was the focus of this effort and succeeded because of the commitment, dedication, and tenacity of its people. i like the fact that it showed the enhanced interrogation program had something to do with the capture of bin laden. i like that they conceded that in fact there were other intelligence techniques that allow us to caption bin laden besides interrogation of human operations, analysis, technical operations imagery. i also like that it showed the

strong working relationship between the agency and military. it is a mixed bag, but again, it is entertainment, and i like it as entertainment. >> i thought it was a terrific action hflick. for my money is about 20 minutes too long. and i started twitching at the to our market. and obviously the final take down was done in real time. it was reading. in the interrogation scenes were striking. there were hard to watch for me, having lived through this and how the actual techniques came to be and the safeguards we put on them, the monitoring by

medical personnel during the course of the interrogation. you know, again, it is a movie. the character in the movie, making stuff up as he went along. and did the bucket. -- get the bucket. people have asked me about the box. one of the techniques was a box, putting a detainee in a box for a limited duration. the box in the movie, not the kind of box that was used. when i say all of this, i do not want to downplay or leave any impression that the actual program and actual water boarding was tame or benign. it was a very aggressive

technique, as were all the others, but on the whole i went into it telling myself it was going to be a movie. i was frankly relieved there were no lawyers involved in the movie. [laughter] i would spend the next four years at cocktail parties explaining i was not that lawyer. on the whole it was a mixed bag, but it was a terrific movie. you know, i think it did take no sides, and i think they skillfully teed up a complicated the complicated questions we were facing, especially in the first few scary month after the 9/11 attacks. >> you were the chief legal

officer at the time. would you have authorized the interrogation techniques the way they were depicted? explain the box. do people just throw someone on a map and start pouring water over their heads? steve bono -- >> no. those interrogators were not allowed to ad lib. there were certain, specific memos. it was -- there was a meticulous procedure to undertake. before the use of the water board the interrogators at the site would have to come back in writing to explain why they thought the water board was necessary. it would be approved at headquarters during the time the water board was used, which was only until mid-2003. it took the cia director to

approve the use. it was a much more monitor program. now the box -- the box is not pleasant. first of all, there was a big box of the rise that a detainee could stand in and a smaller box. it did not appear to be quite as small as what was depicted in the movie. but yes, there was a box technique. again, everyone could look at it a different way. i had the impression from the scene that the guy was at living as he went along, which was far from the reality. >> mike, one of the scenes, the interrogator throws the detainee down and starts pouring water over his face and start shouting when was the last time you saw bin laden? i think that gets to a deep misunderstanding of how interrogation actually worked.

one thing you explain to me when i was working on my book is there is a difference between interrogation and debriefing. the purpose of interrogation was not -- we did not ask questions we did not know the answers to. it was to ascertain whether they were being truthful or not. you always have to assess everything. i wonder why i left one station chief in islamabad for 10 years. so things about the compressed. reality may have been too long of a story to weed out in terms of what the narrative needed to move forward. and i am almost going to make an absolute statement that we never asked anybody anything we did not know the answer to while they were undergoing the enhanced interrogation techniques. the techniques were not designed to elicit truth in the moment,

which was tell me this or i will hurt you. for about a third of the detainees, this was not necessary. now, i am willing to admit the existence of the option may have influenced the two-thirds who said let's talk. but for about a third, techniques were used. not to elicit information in a moment, but to take someone who had come into the custody, absolutely defiant, and move them into a state or a zone of cooperation whereby and then you recall the scene in the movie after the detainee is cleaned up and they're having a lengthy conversation. for the rest of the detention, and in some cases it is years, it is conversation, a debriefing. it is going back and forth with the kind of dialogue that you saw in the scene about a third of the way through the movie.

a lot of people reflect and will say anything to make you stop, which may actually be true. that is why we did not ask some questions while this was going on. again, as john said, these things were in general. the impact was psychological. the impact is you are no longer in control of your destiny. you are in our hands. there for the movement into the zone of cooperation, as opposed to the zone of defiance. >> usually the enhanced interrogation program lasted a few days. some cases a few weeks. as a matter of fact, i think the

justifications for the use of the techniques said we could not go beyond 30 days, and they have very specific information guidance regarding how long sessions could be and how long we could pour water. it was very controlled. pretty quickly he recognize within 10 seconds we would stop pouring water. after a while he figured it out and started to count with his bankers to let us know the time was up. >> now, tell the story you have in your book about the terrorist and what he said to interrogators after he was water boarded. >> it was interesting because at one. he finally told us that we should use water boarding in

particular, but enhanced interrogation program on all the brothers, because he gave us the explanation. the explanation was that the brothers needed to have religious justification to talk, to provide information. however, they would not be expected to go beyond their capabilities of resistance. once they felt they were there, they were then compliant and would provide information. he basically recommended to us that we needed to submit the brothers to this type of procedure if we wanted them to cooperate. >> in order to do so without sin. >> i should add this narrative

was my summer of 2006 was trying to make judgments on the overall effectiveness and the program going forward because circumstances have changed. the story was important for my own soul-searching on this. because in other words, i was not trying to prove the point that what we're were doing -- what we were doing was universally applicable for all detainees in all circumstances for all future crises. it was well-suited to this group whose belief was founded on almost not physical principles, obedience to the world god, and this story that he told about creating -- that all lot expects him to obey him and will not send us a burden more than we can handle.

you have done that and therefore i can speak to you without fear of hell. that said to my thinking for these programs for these detainees. some on the outside tried to expand the debate, to suggest we are trying to suggest some metaphysical macro principles. that may or may not be true, but i was not interested in it. i was focused on what was happening here. in many cases i think there were finally released that they felt they had reached the point where they could talk, and once they reached that point, and these are very egomaniacs people, and they cannot wait to tell you how evil they are, so they just started talking. they just would not stop.

also, psychological issue of the big egos played into our hands after a while, because they would just want to tell us everything. >> one thing people do not realize is that philosophy started with our hearing. there was a story about how he was here and was arrested and tortured and gave up one of his close confidantes and was despondent over it. the person came to him and said you are okay, you resisted. you resisted as far as you could. no one could have undergone it, so you did the right thing by giving me up. our hearing was one of the people that trained him. this was a philosophy that he spread throughout the group. john, we see in the movie that

one of them was water board, and i do not think that happened. how many detainees underwent what reporting? we hear ksm was water boarded 180 times. he told the red cross it was five times. >> he was never water board it. he was the last detainee who was subjected to eit before we had to suspend the program. it stopped midstream. it earned him a footnote in history i suppose. this issue of numbers, how many times, how many times they were

water board did. this erodes in 2004. it was by the obama administration when he came into office. it depends on the way you count them. the actual applications lasted matter of seconds. it if you think he was left at 83 sessions, i do not want to say that what these guys went through was not very aggressive. it simply, those numbers are just way out of bounds and had

been misinterpreted in subsequent years to as to the particular organizations. >> one of the startling statistics their action more generalist -- won a startling statistics is that there are journalists who have submitted to order boarding to show how bad it is rather than tearing .pirits > >> for the record, that was not me. does not get into my little research. tens of thousands of american servicemen have been water board appeared rather have the only people we still water board are american people, americans in

uniform. order boarding continues, it is not the terrorists. let's turn to the question of the role that detainees played in the hunt for osama bin laden. if you can walk through the role and how it affected it appeared >> we are anchored on the movie. is the movie a lot more subtle than those who have not seen the movie, of guilford to comment. after reading commentary about the movie, i expected this nonstop linear short line between an interrogation session and boots on the ground. there is an awful lot of complex intelligence work that is shown in the movie, for which i do not think the movie gets credit. i do want to make that point.

when i was first brief, and i think it was late 2007. in may have been very early 2008. the team came to me and said we think we're onto something here. but we think we've portrayed correctly was the obsession people tracking down osama bin laden. this is a very broad team. these folks have been on one or another different hypotheses. they came to me and said couriers. we think this is going to be a very positive line of inquiry. we have some information. we know we are communicating. we're confident it is not electronically giving the other means we would have detected that. it must be face-to-face. we have leads on couriers. they laid out a whole series of

paths they were following. one was information derived from cia detainees. it was just mentioned in passing. we were not trying to prove a principal or refutes and arguments or anticipate the script of a future academy award nominated movie. it was just part of the flow. that is what i tried to suggest to you. it is almost impossible for me to imagine anything like that happening with all making use of this costco like storehouse of intelligence information that we gained over the years through detainee's. and the ability to go back to the detainees and challenge their information or to prompt them with new information. let me suggest one other thing.

in an attempt to create the argument of a linear connection , very often stuff you have in your possession takes meaning all me from information later discovered. that kind of costco warehouse, something lasting from "readers of the last arc" is too low. it is sending you have learned in 2007 or 2008. you have to treat this of a tapestry. that is the only way to consider it. >> one of the things he told me was that intelligence is like putting together the public without the box. >> it is like putting together a

puzzle that there are no edge pieces and you do not get to see the cover on a box. there are a whole bunch of puzzle pieces that do not belong to this puzzle. if you can talk to someone who has glimpsed the cover of the box, and that is the detainee, it eliminates an awful lot of things the may already possess but not cannot quite fit into the pattern. >> in this case, the man who drew the cover of the box. >> the movie is about the information to get osama bin laden. there's a lot more to this story. that is the destruction of al qaeda. the enhanced irrigation program was key in destroying al qaeda. osama bin laden continues later. we had a number of terrorist coming after us with plot.

we were able to capture them, kill them, destroy the plot, wrap them up because of this program. we can go into detail in terms of everything that happened, but enhanced interrogation programs was the key to that. >> a follow up. take us back to september 11, 2011 -- september 1, 2001. there is smoke in the ground in new york. the pentagon is broken. what do we know about al qaeda @? did we know that members of this network, all this information we take for granted now? >> we did not know that much. we did not know who was responsible for 9/11. we had a few assets of the provided us some peripheral

information. we did not know very much. it took a long time for us to be in a position to really learn what was going on. in march of 2002, we captured al zabeta. we recognized that we had to do something different. contrary to what some people are saying, he initially provided a couple of pieces of information. then he shut down. we knew they were coming after us in the second wave of attacks. we knew that they had a nuclear program. they had a biological weapons program. we thought we needed to do something different. that is when the enhanced interrogations program came into existence. he went through the program,

started in august of 2002 for 20 days or so. if you later -- if you sit recaptured a major player. he was a go-between. this was the key to all of that. we forget that it is not just osama bin laden 10 years later. it is al qaeda coming with us with plots and plots that allowed us to take down. >> one of the points he made to

me was after 9/11 we had a legal program to get the people who had done this to us. we also had a program to get some of these people alive and find out what we know. and this situation is not optimal. you want to kill terrorists but it is not always optimal. it seems to me our policy is to vaporize all the intelligence with drones. is that an optimal situation? >> susan li in the wake of the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks were we were trying to pull together a program that would elicit the information that their experts were convinced were keeping from us, i can tell you. i was there from the beginning through the end of the program.

the cia is an intelligence collection organization, first and foremost. it is in agencies dna to want to collect intelligence. from all sorts of means, especially human intelligence. you cannot collect human intelligence from a dead guy. the absolute priority was to thwart the next terrorist attack, which in 2002 everyone, including the people at the cia, thought was only a matter of time. the priority from the beginning with the others were to take them alive. he was captured in a firefight when she was seriously wounded. the agency sent doctors over to bring him back.

it was bought out of compassion but he was no good to us dead. the collection portion for years was paramount. legal operations was not the first option. it certainly was not the only option for those of us at the time. >> one of the critiques of the program is that ksm under 1/4 boarding and all the rest. he still liked about others. yet a fascinating story in your book about how we discovered that he was actually covering. kenya phyllis index >> -- can you fill us in? >> you should they would be the 100% of the information they have in their minds which is not going to happen. this is not a push button, given

that type of thing. dishes.steth s is chris tha they were communicating with each other. they did not think we knew. we did not tell them that we knew there communicating with each other. we intercepted a communication between khalid sheikh mohammed and some of the other detainee's in which he said do not say a word about the courier. that told us a lot about the career. he speaks to the importance of having a place to dig the individuals. we could use that type of communication.

we could use it to check a name. it was very helpful for us. >> one of the, after the osama and then raid came out working up a interrogations' played a role, as senator mccain gave a speech and said that the first mention of mohammed al- qahtani came from a detainee held in another country. we did not render him to the country for the purpose of interrogations. that statement is technically correct. it is deeply misleading. not intentionally. it implies that we knew all this before hand and we're now just saying we got more information. can you explain why that particular, why it is important that we the program was not

critical to its? >> you're probably talking about another the first mentions he mentioned in passing. at the time, which was 2002 or three, it did not mean anything to us. a security expert for al qaeda, it was not until we got our own information from a facilitator in 2004 that we learned that al- kuwaiti was the courier for been laviosama bin laden appeared ate time it did not mean anything to us. it was like saying jose the

puerto rican. what meant something to us was the fact that we got validation that there was one courier he was osama bin laden's principal way of communicating with al qaeda central. it meant that osama bin laden had taken himself out of the day-to-day running of al qaeda, that he had decided for what ever reason that he was just going to run the operation long distance, recognizing that it was going to be a lot less effective to run an operation like that from far away. and also told us that finding osama bin laden will be a lot more difficult.

al-kuwaiti was his true name and go out and find him. the information that was obtained at the site although not complete was key. it is what is important in the event will take down of the man. >> i mentioned the article this morning about this movie being a national roszak test. you will see what you want to see. sometimes we talk pass one another . jose'st saw description and a mark's. it is a tapestry, it is complicated. when john wrote the report he said that there is no evidence that any imminent attacks have been stopped for the cia

interrogations program. let's let that stand on its merits. let's not even challenge that. that then is taken to mean the program there for was not affected. he cannot prove this close, immediate, if it did not lead you to tackle someone who is a round on the rooftop right before the attempts than it did not count. breaking up the financial network 18 months earlier, disrupting the courier, you get the point. sometimes they get bollixed up. we had all the letters here. we are mixing and matching. i think that gets lost. >> one example is the take them

of the cell where you had ksm getting information that he gave $50. it may take that information. he gives us the name of the person that he gave a description and the phone number. that information, you then would lose analysis on the pommel number -- on that phone number. it was critical to that. all sorts of intelligence aspect get involved. >> you cannot separate any single source, any single discipline, if any single thread. maybe we could think of one. that is not how it normal happens. it is reflected with the

detective work that goes on when to leave the emphasis on these sites. >> you once called the bluff of the deniers and suggested that it produced no information, why do we not sure of interrogations report backs we have the intelligence committee now, no one has seen it. they claim it says that no information useful came from enhanced irrigation. why did they not pass a law saying it should be destroyed and never use again? what i was feeling pretty when i wrote that. if you think it is all invalid and all the legitimate, and our legal system -- and all illegitimate, in our legal system, if you posted on at

ethical grounds this never works. let us know. we will clean out the files. it is an overwrought challenge on my part. to points that i'm trying draw here. this was important. that we tell you what you tear away. you threw away the 9/11 report. >> i think it is a ridiculous assertion when a report says that the enhanced interrogations program had no value or produce nothing. it is disturbing. in my view it is an attempt to rewrite history. the narrative of this administration is that the enhanced interrogations program was torture and nothing came out

of its. able to destroy al qaeda because of it. i do not know how they can spend 3.5 years spent a i do not know how many millions of dollars, never interviewed any of us, and come up with a statement like that. i do not understand that. >> it does not make any sense. it does not compute. nothing? nothing ta? thousands of reports produced is zilch? liggitt are you got what role it played. this is ministration -- this administration and reconfirmed

by the current acting director, the program did play a role. this is a complex picture with many different strands intertwined. we can argue about how big a role played. it just defies logic for someone to take a position that none of it, and none of their reports, none of the detainee reporting made any difference at all. do not buy that. >> mike once saicompare the dens of the cia program to birthers and truthers. there seems to be an obsession

of critics to deny the efficacy of the program. if you look at a movie like "zero dark thirty" kathryn bigelow says she and knowledge is the effectiveness. it is a valid position to take. -- of the knowledge to the effect of this. is a valid position to take. why are people so upset with trying to disprove the obvious common that we got information? >> i may be a little edgy in my response. i am pointing to the broader american public. i'm talking about the national psyche, not anybody in and out of office. just you. part of a collective. the american citizenry. let me tell you a sentence i never heard of director of the cia. "i know this is back, but what

ever you do do not overreact." i never heard that. i can document a whole bunch of conversations that were way on the other side. it might be as part of a national consciousness a moral struggle for some and our citizenry or national political culture that they are trying to deal not with that we did it but that they did not mind it. or they did not mind it at the time. or they did not mind at the time notng enough to say let's overreact. let me give you the intelligence officers lament. this is winding -- whining. we're often put a situation where we are bitterly accused of not doing enough to defend america when people feel endangered.

then as soon as we have made people feel safe again we are accused of doing too much. i realize that is my fault, my whining. everyone may not share that view. every now and again in a self pity a moment i allow myself that thought. [laughter] >> look. i agree. whether we do these type of programs ever again, it is up to the president. it is up to the american people. they can choose. what i take up section to -- exception to is trying to say it did not work. we need to be honest with ourselves and do an honest assessment of the value that this program brought. we may have to do something like it. it is a dangerous world out

there. >> let me ask a question. our real-estate today because this program has been curtailed is used get back the program significantly. you developed a program that was handed off to any administration. it has been eliminated. what is the effect of that? >> honest men can differ about this. i respect honest man who differ about this. the individual can form a sentencing i did not want you to do this.

i had issues. i do not want you doing this even though it may have helped. you and i are coming from the same political culture. we have a meaningful discussion about what it is, how much risk do we want to embrace as a people? when i became director in 2006, i concluded that we are not the nation's jailers. we are the nation's intelligence service. there cannot be an endless detention program where we keep people. i spent the summer of 2006 talking to people saying we ought to move these people out of cia custody. because the value of most of them are off to a point that other factors were becoming more dominant in the equation. over labor day weekend we lost

14 detainees to guantanamo. i also attended a dialogue with congress. i recognize that if this were valuable and said we need some kind of program to go forward, we needed this option. i was not prepared to tell the president do not worry about this, you'll never need this in the future. i also knew it that the preservation would depend on a whole bunch of factors. one was in need. how much more do we know about al qaeda now? how many more human and other intelligence penetrations of al qaeda doing now have compared to where we were in 2002. a lot change. things that were lawful and when

circumstances they not be in another. this had to be america's program. it cannot be the cia program or the bush administration's program. there is no success if you are running an on-off switch every two years. i was willing to revamp the program and make it more narrow. it takes it off the table and able to preserve a program that is politically sustainable. that is pretty much what we thought we did. that is the dialogue we have with the incoming obama administration. i began my long this conversation with them at the agency, along the lines of i think we have already done what you have done. it is appropriate and the new

circumstances. did not hold. all american detainees under any agent of the american government have to be treated with the army field manual. this spurred in september 2006. i would suggest this cost will manual was written with the knowledge that there was option b. that this program was also available. now we are left with this option a. it should not concern you. before you get to interrogation, you have to capture and we do not capture. we have made it so legally

difficult and so politically dangerous to capture that it seems to the outside looking in that the default option is to take the terrace off the battlefield in another way. >> could you talk a bit about what obama inherited? we had moderate sleep deprivation. tummy slap. a diet of liquid ensure. i'm sure the product owners would love to hear that is torture. >> we assessed the political realities. we possessed -- assess the legal decisions. they said what techniques do you have to have to ensure the continued efficacy of the

program. they came back with the set a scaled-down techniques. weatherboarding was off the table. sleep deprivation. plus what you call the basic techniques. the box was gone. it is definitely a far less progressive program. it remained viable and effective. we took part of these briefings of the obama administration team. we thought we had a program that was viable, limited, politically

and legally realistic. one by way the entire intelligence committee have now been reached into. to digress for a second, the major mistake we made, and i include myself in this, was in the early years of the program. the existence of the program, ed to theas not limit t gameng of 8. i think that was a mistake. by 2006 both had been briefed. we thought it was possible. we thought the obama administration could have continued the program in this limited form, at least maintained it as an option. it did not come to pass they

told the -- to pass. i do not think any less realistically thought they would stick with that. we have not reviewed the executive order. the tunnel was out of our plane. this is a factual slot in the film. they're saying this is not factually correct. we got a hold of the executive order again. all government will be confined to the techniques in army filled many predict army field manual. -- army field manual.

my friends and i have talked about this. i said not that you ask, this is not occurring on the executive order. let me offer you a thought. down here is that all agents will be confined to the techniques and the army. i said if you would just put the phrase "unless otherwise authorized by the president" you might be able to buy back an awful lot of flexibility. what we need it most of all was ambiguity in terms of someone coming into american custody, and being quite sure what would happen. that has not happened. that was the last thought we had on the process. >> you mentioned even if it was a blank page this would have made it an effect. one of the last detainees that

came into the program, i cannot remember the name of the individual. he came into custody. he was told where the cia. he said i will tell you anything you want to know. >> the cartoonish version of it is let me tell you who we are. i heard about you. he was action cooperative. >> just the existence. >> yes. back to the ambiguity. one thing that does come across in the movie, but you have to watch very carefully, the most powerful tool we had in every interrogation we conducted was our knowledge. not one or another technique. >> once you got there the

enhanced interrogation process than the real interrogation began the briefing. that's is with the skill and knowledge with the people who were conducting the sessions. the knowledge base was so good that these people knew that we were not going to be fooled. we have other prisoners and our site. we would be able to check information against others. they knew that. we mentioned the takedown.

they did not know how much khalid sheikh mohammed had told us about $50,000. we would go and get him what we have heard from khalid sheikh mohammed and he thought we had given him all the information. he provided the names from there. it was very well done. the credit goes to the agency analysts and others who participated in the debriefing of his terrorists and wrote thousands and thousands of intelligence dissemination, which we would read every morning and were amazed at the information we were being -- that was being disseminated. it was an incredible effort. >> this program gave us an enormous amount of information about al qaeda in pakistan.

the administration continues to use the intelligence every day in drone stripes. it is not just actable intelligence but how they operate. since the program was shut down we have seen the emergence of all paid in the arabian peninsula. -- of al qaeda in iridium pinto. we have had the emergence of al- shabab merging with out a this central. -- with al qaeda central. and al qaeda in africa. are we struggling in a way? the information we have on pakistan and the lack of information, is it harder to get

the intelligence we need because we do not have this tool? >> one of the most important threads of information that i saw when i got there and still mom could 2006, late in the game, was detainee information. at are the suggested to you that i'm willing to adjust the detail program -- i already suggested to you that i am willing to adjust the detainee program. we have other petitions and sources and knowledge. we have a better sense of the imminence of attack, what state of danger we are in as a nation. i told you we entered the black side in 2006 appeared lazy journalists sometimes they we close them. we did not.

we get the option open for the president. between that date might i'm leaving we captured two people. it isn't setting indoor record compared to what we have done. it had become far more difficult to do this. i understand that. i do. to go back to my earlier statement. we have made it so legally challenging and politically dangerous. you tell the bureaucracy that is an option. it is electrified. i know how bureaucracy's response. that option does not flow to the top when you began to explore things. what you're getting is a little bit different than the white house in all options are on the table. that is probably correct. in the real world what i just

described for you makes a real different. let's make a christmas night 2009. but make a conference call with the guy who tried to explode his underpants. it is christmas night. who is in town? wii you have everybody on the conference call. the attorney general says we arhave a team talk to him. we are going to seen a clean team in there. put that aside whether it is a good idea or bad idea. can you imagine the guy at the cia on the conference call going "excuse me, i've got another option for you to consider." i cannot imagine that happening. because of the broader

political, cultural context we have created. it is so legally in politically dangerous -- legally difficult and politically dangerous that we seem to be absent. >> essentially your own government will come after you. this was 2003. we had tremendous support from the congress and the american people to make sure we were not attacked again. we kind of laughed. the problem is that a few years later many of us were being investigated. the agency was being investigated. the concern that i have, frankly

to this day, is the chilling effect it has on the leadership at the agency. it's a mark there is a big crisis and they say we're going to start x and there was controversy and risk in it, people are going to say look what happened in the past. despite the best efforts, we still had to face a lot of investigations and build an indictment and stop. -- stuff. i fear for the safety of our national security because of that. may be am overdoing it but i have a great concern about it. >> looking down the road, let me

indoleuldge. hagen bit biased, you cannot read it buys the you cannot tell everybody. detention must be an option left on the table. theoretically i suppose it is an option today. the reality is there has been a grand total of one detainee captured by thsince the program ended. we cannot tell this red by killing this threat.

i will leave that at that. >> i wanted to open it up to questions from the audience. blacks i m and open sores intelligence -- >> i am an open source intelligence person appeare. in the movie they have a portion where they take the gentlemen and get them a very nice plate of food. the guy is apprehensive. the issue is we can piggyback in there but you do not have to keep this. -- put you back in their big you do not have to eat this. the movie is criticized for the enhanced interrogation techniques but when someone

decides to cooperate, but one thing that is not always in the knowledge that want to get them to cooperate sun-times is getting the option to have something better, that can give them to talk. i was wondering what would it be in your experience, when you're not dealing with somethinsomeone like khalid sheh mohammed maybe you have some of the mid-level guys who are not as radical eyes. what experiences you have a summit taking them off the liquid food diet helped turn the g?ble to give them somethin >> the whole program was designed from providing rewards for good behavior. they got a lot more than just good food. the that the best medical care. and they got books.

they watched movies. it was pretty good. they appreciate it. it was parts of the program. >> we talked about the dvd collection at guantanamo. >> how did you get the true identity of osama bin laden's carriourier? would you have been able to track him down without using indians interrogations? >> as i sai -- enhance interrogation? >> as i said, we got the information of the career from a

facilitator who went through the enhanced interrogation program. it is not until some years later that we were able to get the true name of al-kuwaiti. that was a very human collection capabilities. that was the importance intelligence that provided real information on the person that was the courier. the facilitator provided good information, the lead information, that allowed us to narrow it down. it was intelligence traditional work that led to the identification of al-kuwaiti. >> would you have been able to

get him without enhance interrogations? >> it provided the lead information on osama bin laden. the enhanced interrogation program was much more than just getting osama bin laden. it was protecting the country and saving american lives. it allowed us to do it for 10 years. >> a couple of factual questions about the film. the main character, was that a fictional composition of different people who were looking after bin laden, i understand this is classified, was there one person that was really that a template? did you actually really give italian sports car to middlemen to obtain information?

if so, which cars were they? [laughter] the deadly attack on the outpost, did that really happy? -- happen because the local person was so eager to talk to the person? >> first of all a boutmaya, all of us can claim we know eightmaa maya. clearly, and the character in the movie is a composite. my wife will kill me. we were talking to her sister the of their day and she said something about the movie being politically correct by making the woman the heroin. by what responded -- my wife

responded this is an incredible band of sisters that spearheaded the ubl cell. this is not for it being a better story. most of the people who briefed me on osama bin laden were women officers of the cia. a composite. there's so much emphasis on maya. the part of a movie that served as the most was the trail of the base chief -- put trail of days she. she was a wonderful officer. she goes back pre-9/11. i understand artistically they wanted to create some sort of just the system between her and maya, but it is very

unfortunate unfair that she was portrayed that way. let me offer you an additional thought. at the level of ethics and focus and attitude in culture, you do not get it without kost. it is not cause and effect. the kind of agency that was willing to lean forward, take this risk, willing to bring this potential source in is the kind of agency that leaned forward and finally led. it comes out of the same kind of cultural, ethical sense of duty reservoir. >> i knew jeff matthews quite well. -- jennifer matthews quite well. in many ways that was the most in terms of try to separate from

my movie, it the way she was portrayed. it was clearly her. it was divorced from any sort of reality. jennifer was in the counter- terrorism center before 9/11. she and her colleagues were haunted by 9/11, a haunted by guilt, haunted by the fact that maybe they should have done something else or found out something else. it was a terrible burden on all of them, but jennifer was affected directly. she came to talk to me about it afterwards. she came to talk to me because the cia inspector general want an investigation after 9/11 to assess accountability for 9/11 in the agency by name, people.

think about that for a minute. people are going to singled out for whose performance led to the 9/11 attack. it was a long list of people originally. it was immensely which hold down. jennifer was on that list. it haunted her and a scepter. she was a far more complex and interesting character in real life and was portrayed in the movie. in many ways, more of the composite figure than the maya. jennifer was far more attractive than the woman who played in the movie. that may be a first in the history of modern docu-drams. >> this is a lot more fun, too.

>> i did remember italian sports car is given to anybody. -- i do not remember italian sports cars given to anybody. what let me say thank you. i was wondering or position on whether a night the report on the interrogation program should be declassified. i am wondering whether you do see any risks to the program from an ethical perspective? if you get the to why we should not have this program all the time or why you chose to rein it in? what those rest are even if there are practical needs. >> the sow like pandering and i

did not mean it to be. the complex culture means the budget all sides of issues. we understand that. there are risks. i went to the german embassy in 2007. the ambassador had all of the ambassadors to the yes for the -- us. i said list of about detention and interrogation. i laid it out. let me give you four sentences. we believe we are a nation at war with al qaeda and the affiliate's. my moral and legal responsibility is to take it to that enemy. there's not another country in the room who agreed wi a